Category Archives: Right

Some thoughts on the banishing of Jews at Chicago’s LGBT Pride march

A few days ago at this blog, in a post (which can be read in full here) that outlined my opposition to LGBT Pride culture from an LGBT perspective, I explicitly warned:

“Pride, like all social justice movements, has a goal: to overcome prejudices. But, in taking part, many of its members subscribe to the very narratives and stereotypical behaviours that become magnets for bullying and misunderstanding.

The problem with social justice movements is that invariably they fight what they perceive to be oppression by adopting methods which are counter-productive to their cause.

Racism and sexism are tackled by university students with counter racism and counter sexism. Just as any lasting homophobia is addressed through means which serve only to give life to bigotry.”

So it wasn’t surprising to me to read the following about an LGBT march in Chicago in a Windy City Times report only this morning:

Asked to leave by Collective members of the Dyke march were three people carrying Jewish Pride flags (a rainbow flag with a Star of David in the center).

According to one of those individuals—A Wider Bridge Midwest Manager Laurel Grauer—she and her friends were approached a number of times in the park because they were holding the flag.

“It was a flag from my congregation which celebrates my queer, Jewish identity which I have done for over a decade marching in the Dyke March with the same flag,” she told Windy City Times. She added that she lost count of the number of people who harassed her.

One Dyke March collective member asked by Windy City Times for a response, said the women were told to leave because the flags “made people feel unsafe,” that the march was “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.”

“They were telling me to leave because my flag was a trigger to people that they found offensive,” Grauer said.”

Firstly, I refer to LGBT activities of this kind as a social justice movement due mainly to the fact that organisers and activists repeatedly assert that they belong to an oppressed class, and that they need these celebrations to display defiance and overcome the homophobia they often claim to be systemic or rampant.

But, as we see once again, the tactics deployed in bringing about these aims, even if by a small sect of the community, highlight the concerns I shared on June 21st. The new culture we have fostered, in which certain, usually minority groups challenge perceived oppression, is being conducted with the harnessing of self-aggrandising and counter-intuitive techniques.

We all know what is at play here. Many of those at Chicago’s march will have been activists or semi-political Left-wingers, no doubt vehemently opposed to Israeli policies against the Palestinians. The trouble is that LGBT marches ought to be apolitical in the sense that they are designed to unite goers in defiance, companionship and joy.

I am not going to comment on the merits of Israeli policy towards Palestine, purely out of a lack of knowledge, but it must be stated that by latching on to separate, wholly irrelevant political conquests, the LGBT movement splits, weakens and invites fresh hostility unto itself.

A potential consequence of anti-Jewish sentiment of this kind is that it may provoke a counter-response from Orthodox Jews in the United States, especially those who are easily offended or (in some cases) antagonistic or violent, who of course view minority sexual behaviour as sinful and in violation of the word of God.

It is not inconceivable that, by taking partisan stances on fringe issues, much like the National Union of Students has in Britain, the LGBT Pride movement will find itself alienating people that would otherwise be allied or apathetic. American Jews will not appreciate internal subjugation at marches which are designed in such a way as to display harmony and solidarity.

Much like the Right has developed a worrying problem with Islamophobia (not to be confused with sensible critiques of Islam and its role in the spread of Islamism), the Left has for many years had a lingering problem with anti-Semitism. It is largely rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the Left often uses to advance its favoured power narrative, viewing truth and justice purely in terms of who is stronger and who is weaker.

Not all LGBT representatives or marchers are Left-wing, of course, but the vast majority are. And those responsible for banishing Ms Grauer from her participation in Chicago will have been too.

For years it was religious policy and thought that most hindered the expression of the LGBT community. Let us not, then, in more equal and freer times reject those outstretched arms from religious communities. We ought to be treating others in ways we implored to be treated in decades gone by.

 

 

 


Dear Mr Corbyn, hands off my tuition fees

I wish Leftist politicians would stop lumping me in with all the other, equally Leftist students in this depressing General Election. Specifically, I don’t like to hear Jeremy Corbyn talk about tuition fees as if all students are utterly appalled by them.

He did it last night during his relatively underwhelming Question Time performance. He reiterated his desire for national funding in education before making the false claim that “the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university has gone down”.

Naturally, he attributed this trend to the introduction of and rises in the cost of tuition fees. Though immediately after he said this, ‘Full Fact’ rebutted his nonsensical claim, saying:

“There are a number of ways to measure what a ‘disadvantaged pupil’ is, but on all UCAS measures young students from disadvantaged groups in England are more likely to go to university now than any other year on record.”

The reference to England is particularly interesting when you compare it to its historically hostile northern neighbour, Scotland. In May 2016, the Sutton Trust, a distinguished education agency, published a report entitled Access in Scotland, in which they found:

“The gap in university participation between young people from the most and least advantaged areas is higher in Scotland than in the other home nations. Scottish 18 year olds from the most advantaged areas are still more than four times more likely to go straight to university than those from the least advantaged areas.  In England, those from the most advantaged areas are 2.4 times as likely to go to university as those from the least, and three times as likely in Wales and Northern Ireland.”

Scotland, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, does not charge its home students tuition fees. It seems that where tuition fees are implemented, the proportion of ‘disadvantaged pupils’ (of which I am one) attending universities actually increases.

By scrapping tuition fees, as the Labour Party plans at the cost of £8bn per year (according to the IFS), they propose not only a subsidy for the rich, but a strangulation on university funding, which relies largely on fees across both undergraduate and postgraduate study. It is unclear that, with existing cuts to teaching budgets already made, scrapping fees will not be adequately compensated for.

Research by ‘The Russell Group’ showed that between 1989 and 2005, ‘government funding did not keep pace with increasing student numbers, leading to a 40% fall in funding per student’. Even in light of compelling evidence, I do admit that funding caps have not been kept even with the rate of inflation, which has started to see decline in real term funding gains.

There is therefore a stronger argument for increases to fees than there is to scrapping them altogether. Fears over under-admitting students from poorer backgrounds simply haven’t been realised. The reality has been that tuition fees have increased ‘per student’ funding and improved the quality of education for the disadvantaged, with repayments organised on the basis of post-study income.

The system is fair as we look at things. Education cannot be free, as the Left often claim it ought to be. There is a bill to be paid, and it is a question of who pays and for whom. It is not acceptable for working taxpayers to pay for the education of students from wealthy families. And why should others pay for my degree? They do not benefit. I benefit. And thus, I should foot the bill for my studies.

My current student debt sits at £36,000 when additional, supplementary loans are factored in. I am classified by government as a ‘disadvantaged pupil’ by income measure. My journalism degree has just concluded, but when I was studying, I constantly reminded myself of the costs of study.

Tuition fees didn’t put me off or make me want to drop out in order to avoid large, growing debts. They actually had the opposite effect on me psychologically. Fees galvanised me, reminding me of the price I would pay and that I should strive to get as much out of university as I possibly could. I do not pretend to represent all students (especially as a Right-wing conservative), but I suspect I am not the only student who experienced this.

The Labour leader has repeatedly referred to his party’s manifesto as a careful and well-considered document that is both fully costed and a positive alternative for the country. Though as far as university funding is concerned, I don’t think students should see it this way.

Students may be dismayed by the prospect of sizeable debts, but they ought to consider the factors that I have outlined above. The national conversation about the costs of tuition tends to imply that scrapping fees is a policy that students universally agree with and one that will encourage poorer students to embark upon Higher Education. Neither claim is the case.

Mr Corbyn, hands off my tuition fees.


The pro-immigrant case against mass immigration

Finally, a workable, coherent plan on immigration has emerged. Lord knows that Britain has been longing for one for the last two decades. I ask readers to note that it is thanks to our leaving the European Union that it will be possible to execute one at all.

Obviously not being a part of UKIP has had a liberating effect on Steven Woolfe, whose ‘Leave means Leave’ report, published earlier, calls for a five-year ban on unskilled immigration to help bring net migration down to below 50,000 per year.

At last, the country is beginning to act as if it is sovereign again. Of course, we aren’t yet, but positive signs are beginning to show. We dare to dream once more about things we spent years having absolutely no control over.

The issue of immigration was always going to be the acid test for Brexit. Mr Farage told Faisal Islam a few months ago that it would be regaining control of our territorial waters, but I think he only said this as a reminder to the government.

Immigration was the largest single issue within the subset of arguments for leave, and for good reason. Our politicians sat idly by whilst working class communities were left bitterly divided thanks to unprecedented levels of (particularly unskilled) immigration.

The poor were more seriously affected, as with all failed policies, and men and women all over the country began to feel isolated in the towns and neighbourhoods that they once knew and loved.

This isn’t, crucially, a condemnation of the migrants who arrived. Rather, it is a critique of the notion that a historically unique sample of different peoples and cultures can peacefully and successfully be imposed upon a society and encouraged not to integrate.

But, what we don’t consider often enough are the effects on those who migrate. I believe that there is a powerful but buried pro-immigrant case for limiting immigration. It ought to be discussed more seriously.

In 2013, a British social attitudes survey revealed that 77% of the British public favoured a reduction in the level of immigration. The percentage of people who preferred the numbers to be cut had increased substantially from the late 90s, when the Blair government embarked upon its ridiculous policy of opening up the doors to most of Eastern Europe.

So the first significant impact on the country since this radical project was introduced has been to promote strong anti-migrant sentiment. Cities and demographics changed rapidly and mass immigration sparked, as it always does where tried, a burgeoning resentment.

By radically reducing the number that come (starting rationally with those less skilled), we can stem the tide of sentiment that can have a profound impact upon the quality of life of those who come here. We can also give our one million unemployed young people an even break in the jobs market.

It can’t be understated: strong borders do more to suppress racism and promote social cohesion than any government initiative, charity or think tank ever could.

By definition, strong borders allow only the highest quality immigrants to enter a society. They give settling immigrants a more positive reputation, and incentivise the existing, national population to be more tolerant and welcoming.

I mention quality of life above deliberately. It is perhaps the most crucial aspect to this whole debate. I only wish Leftist liberals could understand that it is not he who wants the highest number to come, but he who wants the best life possible for immigrants that can truly claim moral authority in this argument.

Especially (though not limited to) for those, like me, who live in the South East of England, the pressures on public services have never been more intense. For my generation, housing has floated almost comically far from affordability.

Only those born into wealth or lucky enough to have bagged a fantastic job will be unfamiliar with the struggles of getting on to the housing ladder.

Unfortunately, politicians were slow to realise that markets are about demand and supply, and that a substantial increase in the number of people entering the country equates to a substantial decrease in the chances of being able to afford the property you want.

And so this affects incoming migrants, too. Immigrants can’t escape housing bubbles, and a reduction in the numbers coming (paired with sustained building efforts) will enable more to better afford the properties that meet their housing needs.

But, there are other problems. Britain’s immigrants are not likely to appreciate the intense congestion on our roads and at our railway stations as they go about their working lives.

Getting a seat on a train, once an act of thoughtless simplicity, now resembles a circuit of Total Wipeout, as passengers weave in and out of one another hoping to stand by the seat of the next departing commuter.

These little things are easily taken for granted, but they help to form a bigger picture. Mass immigration, when prescribed for a population without its consent, dampens the quality of life of everybody but the landowners who cash in on the promise of cheap labour.

When immigrants arrive in a country, they want to feel welcomed and be presented with the opportunity to integrate and establish themselves within a community. At such a speedy rate, this is almost impossible. And society will suffer the consequences.

So I welcome tomorrow’s report calling for stern controls on immigration. Contrary to the claims of the Left, we haven’t always been a country of immigrants. For very many years there lived in Britain a settled, cohesive populace.

It is true that racial and religious demographics have been significantly altered by mass migration, but don’t fall for the idea that this has always been the case, and that because it has always been the case it must remain so.

There are sensible arguments against large-scale immigration, but the Right has often been guilty of framing the debate in terms of the population and the migrants. I think this is a false dichotomy.

Let us, from now on, criticise the policy from the point of view of those arriving in the UK. That way, we might even get the Left to listen.

 


I don’t dislike Labour, I pity them

I have a softer spot for the Labour Party than most on the Right. This is mainly because, through an expansionist welfare state, they were very helpful to my family throughout my upbringing.

I grew up in a single parent family, in the Kent/South East London overlap, with a younger brother and an older sister, and was on free school meals at school (I hope this is helpful for those in political circles who have misguided preconceptions about me or my background).

I mention this very quickly not to invoke any kind of unwanted sympathy, but to illustrate that the Labour Party actually did do good things for single mothers and dependent children. In an age of a one-party state, we prefer to forget any remnants of Labour’s successes.

In the days when my siblings and I were growing up (and I suspect the same is true today), single parents were better off financially if they did not seek work.

Jobseekers allowance simply did not compensate for the pressure that unemployment benefit alleviated. Housing and child allowances were larger and those affected were not forced into work once their children had reached the age of 3.

Recipients of benefit payments ought not to be demonised for this very reason. More often than not, they are pursuing a course of action that best fits the predicament that they have found themselves in.

In the case of my family, my father abandoned me when I was a baby, and I do not have any contact with him today. That is all I am comfortable revealing about my personal life, but it should help readers to understand why I am forced to sympathise with Labour more strongly than others on my side of the political spectrum (remember that I’m not referring to the Tories).

In general, I am supportive of a strong welfare state and oppose cuts to disability benefits. I think welfare should never out-compete the lure of work, but ought to be substantive enough to provide those who fall down the ladder with a sturdy rung from which to rebuild their lives.

The most fundamental reason for supporting a strong welfare state is to assist in the stimulation of production. I believe that a government hoping to create more jobs should present the poorest with a higher disposable income. It is at least a better use of public money than funding a bloated, nationalised health service.

My relatively low hostility towards the Labour Party thus has its roots in my own, subjective (past) circumstances. It is therefore saddening to me that it is not stronger.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not yearning to become a member and would not do so if somebody more competent, like Yvette Cooper, was leading the party. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that I pity Her Majesty’s opposition.

I just feel that, especially during a period of landmark political change, Labour’s lack of bite and inability to provide the government with adequate opposition or scrutiny has had a harmful effect on the country’s Brexit debate.

To blame Jeremy Corbyn, too, seems a little too easy. His party’s problems, vast and not easily solved, most definitely stretch far wider than his critics are willing to acknowelege.

He isn’t to blame for lingering anti-Semitism (which I believe to be problematic but slightly overblown), he isn’t to blame for Tony Blair’s damaging legacy, and nor is he to blame for staunch internal divides over the result of Britain’s EU referendum.

It is true that his leadership has been slapdash. He resembles a small child who has just taken his first leap into the deep end of a swimming pool, only to find that it is difficult to navigate without armbands or a float.

He must also learn to take swift and decisive action against figures like Ken Livingstone, who I think has spent far too long in the political sphere and may well be showing signs of senility. I long for the day that both he and Lord Heseltine bow out from party politics.

Investigations are a step in the right direction, but the problem of prominent Labour figures making unpleasant or silly comments is so fully embedded within the party that they may well be futile.

And so we have a chronic credibility problem. It is worth noting that the Left all over Europe is experiencing unprecedented difficulty, but not all hope has been lost. The recent Dutch and Austrian elections show that leftist liberals still have places that they can call home.

If Labour is to regain its lost momentum, or at least pretend to be an electoral threat, it will need a new leader and to cease ignoring its voter base, particularly in the north of England and in Scotland, where the SNP’s legitimacy is beginning to wane.

I don’t hold out much hope. Not even our withdrawal from the European Union could breathe life into them.


Some clarification on my religious reconsideration

I wanted to clarify some confusion amongst readers concerning my most recent blog post on religious reconsideration. The post can be read here.

One of my friends at university, a BBC commentator and journalist at Fulham, Aaron Mandair made the following, rather interesting comment when I tweeted my blog post out. He said: “I wouldn’t just abandon atheism for the sake of it, I would let God find you, otherwise there’s no point to believing.”

Aayush Priyank, a reader and clearly quite a militant atheist, responded to my post by saying that the quote C.S. Lewis quote that I used was ‘redundant’, and that “it is not evidence for God.”

My Scottish friend Ryan Lytwyn, incidentally a Liberal Democrat, pointed out that I used the term ‘liberal’ a little carelessly, which was true.

I think they make very good points, and what was said irritated me because I realised I had not written about my current position with enough clarity. Capturing weeks of consideration in a single blog post is not easy. So, to quickly address Aaron’s point, I should make clear that I am not actively trying to find God. As things stand, I am under the impression that God may have found me over a year ago, and that I was either too stubborn to let Him in, or perhaps that I simply did not realise it. Readers should remember that as I write I am in a place of doubt, trapped a little by confusion. I do not seek belief. Rather, for the very first time in my life, given my known reluctance to worship many of the things non-believers do, like hedonism, I am considering the possibility that God has been reaching out to me.

Mr Priyank, apparently not the best reader I’ve come across, has made a distinct error. Firstly, my use of the C.S. Lewis quote on man’s longing to find happiness in something other than God was not used to prove that God existed. I am not sure how he arrived at the conclusion that it was. I included it because I resonated with it. I felt that it was an accurate representation of Godless societies: man running around desperately looking for things to fill the void, even if those things only offer him short-term pleasure (hence my references to hedonism).

Ryan Lytwyn, a Facebook and personal friend of mine (despite horrendous political clashes) echoed Aaron’s view that faith isn’t something one looks for, and also mentioned that my use of the word ‘liberal’ was not reflective of his type of liberalism and that I was using it to mean Left-wing. I think he is right. I have a tendency to conflate ‘liberal’ with ‘Left-wing’ because that is how I see the political spectrum. I think Left and Right are now anchored to moral, social and cultural beliefs and not economics.

My constant use of the word ‘liberal’ was very lazy. Broadly speaking, those who are conservative are more likely to be religious and those who are liberal less so, but this is certainly not always the case. I have in recent days spent time talking to liberal-minded people who have Christ in their lives to get an understanding of why and how they converted. This was because I wanted to try and find parallels in my thinking when compared with their experiences.

I hope that provides a little more clarity. If readers are a little clearer now, they’ll still be a lot less confused than I am.


Trump’s inauguration and the new American patriotism

Despite the bold claims and fancy soundbites woven into Donald Trump’s inaugural speech earlier this evening, I thoroughly enjoyed most of what he said. I thought that his message, delivered with conviction and characteristic bite, was refreshingly patriotic. The beauty of Trump’s discourse is that it is precisely not what we would ordinarily expect from a senior statesman: politically incorrect, blunt and wildly ambitious.

I was struck, as I always am by these occasions, by the tendency of those on the conservative Right (or at least those pretending, as I suspect Trump could be) to rely heavily on patriotic sentiment in political discourse. Yes, the ceremony symbolises a transition of power and a new chapter for a republic, but there is always something spectacular about effused, Right-wing patriotism.Today’s inauguration certainly had a distinctly patriotic feel to it. The pomp traditionally provided by celebrity performances was ditched and religious propensity played its typically central role.

Trump said poignantly during his speech that “when you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” Perhaps this kind of rhetoric is a tactic that the Right finds useful when it comes to setting a narrative.  I have for a long time considered ‘patriotic correctness’ to be a means of regulating acceptable thought, speech and behaviour by those on the Right, almost certainly a defence mechanism designed to counterweight the more liberal-espoused political correctness. But the best part by far of the new president’s inaugural message came towards the end, as he claimed boldly: “We will bring back our jobs, we will bring back our borders, we will bring back our wealth and we will bring back our dreams.” In one powerful sentence, Trump encapsulated why he had been entrusted with office. It was a beautiful line, displaying his love of country and using it to directly address the concerns of ordinary American people.

It tends to be the case that the political Right, or conservatives, are more openly patriotic than those on the liberal Left. Research on this issue is both abundant and unsurprising. The Pew Research Center show that by and large, ‘steadfast conservatives’ are more likely to believe that the United States of America stands out above all other countries, with only a small minority of ‘solid liberals’ agreeing: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-2-views-of-the-nation-the-constitution-and-government/.

A prominent Gallup poll, conducted between 2001 and 2016, showed that while patriotic feeling has stagnated, those most likely to be patriotic are republican voters: http://www.gallup.com/poll/193379/new-low-extremely-proud-americans.aspx, which serves to support the idea that a broad liberal-conservative divide, not by any means perfectly illustrated by voting tendencies, exists when it comes to attitudes towards American patriotism. By July 2016, 68% of Republican voters said that they were proud to be American, compared with just 45% of polled Democrats.

If the new leader of the free world’s combative inaugural address is anything to go by, the exploitation of republican-led patriotic sentiment in America (I strongly suspect Trump’s voter base included many democratic defectors, too) might well be what we end up calling Trumpism. It probably has something to do with how the president connects with people. Simple language, bold optimism and evocative expressions of personality are exotic traits in modern politics, used sparingly and often by those attempting to present themselves as ‘anti-establishment’.

The imagery, too, was remarkable as Trump stood up in front of a White House teaming with establishment figures. Four former presidents sat nervously behind him as he delivered a punchy pledge to unite Americans, reminding them of the privileges they are to enjoy over those he referred to as “outsiders”. This does not mean that the new American patriotism is rooted in xenophobic prejudice or snobbish majoritarian entitlement. Rather, it is a rallying cry against the very mechanisms that have left a large chunk of the population feeling marginalised. In many ways, Trump’s presidency marks the first true test for populism in the modern era. Since Marine Le Pen must wait until May to be elected and Brexit has not yet happened, the next few months will serve as a useful appetiser for those who have spent the last year or so riding populist waves.

 

 


How not to respond to a terror attack

How sad it was to see the people of France once again fall victim to Islamic terrorism late last night. As innocent bystanders celebrated Bastille Day in the beautiful city of Nice, one drug-fueled fundamentalist decided he would use a lorry to massacre almost 100 unsuspecting citizens. I want to send my sympathies and well-wishes to the families and friends of those affected, however meaningless and insignificant they may be.

What a shame also that westerners are beginning to feel desensitised to increasingly common, though equally-horrendous attacks. It has been a truly testing eighteen months for France; a country which (along with Belgium) really seems to be struggling in the fight against radical Islam. The heartbreaking fact is that this doesn’t look like a war that will end any time soon. My fear is that we will see a lot more bloodshed and violence in the months and years to come.

Vigils, candles and hashtags are pleasant gestures, but nothing more than this. They do not constitute progression in terms of public or foreign policy, they do not tackle the core of Islamic fundamentalism, and they do not bring back those killed in acts of vile, merciless terrorism. I suspect some will be comforted by kind displays of solidarity, but most are now left wondering why they are having to occur so frequently.

We can pray for the French if we wish to, but realistically, how helpful has praying proven to be? We can express publicly our love or hatred of Islam, but how useful is this in achieving anything other than divide and intolerance? We can suggest solutions to aiding the war on terror, but Twitter doesn’t seem an appropriate platform for these solutions to be adhered to. In effect, social media has become a tool by which outrage is magnified, tensions are exploited and disunity is encouraged in the wake of despicable incidents of violence and terrorism. For this reason, I try my best to avoid being sucked into emotional cyber spasms.

In the good old days (alas, a time I was not around to see), we used to get on with life immediately after terrorism. Perhaps this was because the war generation found themselves used to bombings and devastation, or perhaps it was down to that famous British stiff upper lip (which seems to have disappeared, I might add). Nowadays, we rant and rave and sign emotionally-charged petitions calling for bans, border closures and infringements to be placed upon cherished freedoms. We need to calm down.

Only those unfortunate enough to have lost a loved one in an act of hatred have a mandate to be emotional. Since social media has brought us all closer together and made life much more interactive, we seem to take the burden of mourning upon ourselves as a means of enhancing our own social desirability. Bizarrely, it is often those closest to an attack that remain the most rational and objective in the wake of its effects, and those furthest away who resort to the kind of bigotry and fear-mongering that terrorists have come to reap the rewards of.

This does not mean Islam, or indeed sects of the Islamic community cannot be held responsible. Islamism continues to thrive in a range of European, African and Asian societies. Intensifying anti-Muslim sentiment hasn’t worked, using terror attacks to justify bombing raids hasn’t worked and simply ignoring the ongoing presence of Islamic fundamentalism clearly isn’t working either. The question is whether or not western societies can respond by upholding the values they champion; of liberty and the rule of law. The question is whether the peoples of Europe can muster the tolerance and encourage the diversity that has brought great benefits to the continent.

Preserving liberty in the face of adversity can be extraordinarily difficult, but wholly worthwhile. It is for this reason that I cannot support the deportation of domestic Muslims in France or indeed my own country, and it is for this reason that I cannot support thoughtless bans on Islamic immigration. Liberty is too precious to be discarded in such a manner. Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he said that those who will sacrifice liberty for security will in the end enjoy neither.

An interesting article has cropped up in the Daily Mail, for anybody interested, that has described the attacker as an ISIS fanatic who ‘took drugs and flouted every rule of Islam’. This doesn’t surprise me. Most attacks of this nature, both Muslim and non-Muslim tend to be perpetrated by deranged, drug-obsessed lunatics. I am pleased that a major publication has highlighted the link between drug taking and violence. You can read the article for yourself here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691019/Several-people-injured-truck-crashes-crowd-Bastille-Day-celebrations-Nice.html

Motives aside, though, I don’t claim to have the silver bullet on this. It is obvious to me that French Muslims are not as integrated as they are in other parts of the world, like Britain. It is also obvious to me that continuing to allow the influence of Saudi Arabia and fundamentalist-supporting regimes to creep into French society is dangerous. France’s ‘state of emergency’ seems set to continue for the foreseeable future. But there is an interesting prospect on the horizon.

French presidential elections take place late next year, and I’m now almost certain that Marine Le Pen is set to take office, swinging France vigorously to the Right. I don’t like Le Pen, but if such attacks are to continue in her country, then support for her presidential bid is likely only to strengthen. I’m not particularly well versed when it comes to French politics, so forgive me, but it seems to me to be plausible to suggest that Francois Hollande’s legacy will be stained by France’s apparent buckling to Islamic extremism.

We will see how the French people respond to the fight against Islamic terror as the months and years progress, and I wish the country well in its battle, but it is time for a different approach. Those of us unaffected by last night’s events in Nice may also want to consider the way we behave in light of horrendous acts of violence. After all, sickening terrorists aren’t worthy of dictating public policy. Keep the healing French in your minds, folks. It is they who matter today.


A Sunday reflection on the week’s politics

I thought, for a change, that Sunday might be quite a good opportunity to sit down and reflect on the week’s politics, in a slightly different format. Whether I make this sort of post a weekly deal (I may well choose to do so) or not, I’m not absolutely sure as of yet. The post will not necessarily be in an order of any real importance but will include segments of news that have interested me over the last few days.

Project Fear hits the Premier League

There aren’t many things the ‘remain’ camp won’t say or distort in order to secure an EU stay after June 23rd. They know that football (and specifically the Premier League) is at the very core of British culture, and scaremongering over the importing of foreign players will no doubt present a great way of striking fear into what seems to me to be a heavily undecided electorate.

Not only did BSE (Britain Stronger in Europe) make the claim that various players would no longer be allowed to take part in English football, they also took the time to compile a list of players at each major Premier League club that, allegedly, would not have been able to move to the country without EU membership. I knew that our resident europhiles were unambitious and misguided, but I never had them down as clairvoyants.

Apparently those at ‘Stronger In’ don’t spend too much of their time following football (or logic, for that matter). Work permits are a common fixture inside the Premier League, allowing players to be transferred across continents with very little trouble at all. Problems seldom occur, and many talented players from outside the European Union have enjoyed great success in the UK.

Sol Campbell understands this simple concept. Why don’t Britain’s EU fanatics?

Another ‘Leave’ campaign enters the fray

How many unique campaigns now have their sights set on Britain’s departure from the European Union? With Grassroots Out, Vote Leave and Leave.EU currently the caretaker triumvirate in active competition for the mantle of official designated leave group, the phrase ‘too many cooks’ comes to mind.

In hindsight, this referendum’s ‘leave’ campaigners haven’t organised themselves particularly well. One campaign was enough to present the arguments for an exit, and so Friday’s news that a new Left-wing competitor, ‘The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition’, has thrown its name into the hat didn’t exactly fill me with joy.

I’ve sought to avoid baseless tribalism in recent months; opting for membership of both ‘GO’ and ‘Vote Leave’ in an attempt to meet more people and be as active as I possibly could be. I don’t have a dislike for any of the campaigns per se, but a more unified approach to the summer showdown could well have been preferable.

I am happy that the Left have representation as we march towards the end of June, as a European Union exit isn’t just about those of us on the Right, but I do feel that such a late inclusion will only splay and ignite more tension.

People can represent any campaign that they so wish, but the bickering and political point scoring must come to end; if not for the sake of those involved, then for the sake of our EU membership.

Is this a ‘Ta ta’ to British steel?

How sad it is to see a magnificent beacon of British industrialisation beaten to its very knees by incompetent politicians, dumping and malicious energy costs. I feel for workers at Port Talbot, and would very much like the government to save our steel industry (one of the few bright spots across the UK’s manufacturing landscape).

I’ve been sceptical over the weekend as to whether renationalisation was the way to go to combat the issues our steel faces, but if no other option presents itself, then renationalise we should. Since state aid ‘in principle’ is not generally permitted across the European Union, government intervention will likely be tricky to coordinate.

If Sajid Javid fails to salvage what is left of our steel industry, he may as well say a brisk goodbye to his integrity and any future cabinet positions. He has a tough job ahead of him, but so long as thousands of innocent, hard-working steel workers are not dumped onto the welfare system, he’ll get a pass from me.

As the signs read only a couple of days ago, we bailed out the banks, now it’s time we bailed out our steel.

Praise for the Mail on Sunday

Pleased I most certainly was this morning to read about the Mail on Sunday’s belated (but nevertheless necessary) campaign targeted at the government concerning the extortionate amount of money that Britain gives away in foreign aid.

The feature, based on Friday’s leaked report which revealed that over £170m had been spent over the allotted £12bn budget, encouraged readers to sign an e-petition which calls for the government to re-think the policy and consider putting some of the money to better use.

I’m not myself a fan of a foreign aid ‘budget’ as such. Instead, I believe that the UK should play its part in providing moral, humanitarian aid where possible on a sporadic and prioritised basis. By introducing a parameter in the form of a budget, some international disasters may not receive proportionate or adequate funding, and as has been shown over the last few days, over-spending is also inevitable.

Despite the Tory party’s target of setting aside 0.7% of our GDP for the purposes of global aid being a generous and fairly popular one, charity does often start at home, and over-spending should not be tolerated whilst Britain is gripped by intense industrial woes.

There is a fashionable line that argues that taking from the foreign aid budget is no way to cure domestic ills as it will only incur more suffering abroad. In some cases, this may well be true, but those fronting such an argument may like to consider that there is a huge wealth of difference between helping and appearing to help.

Much of the foreign aid budget is wasted on projects which do not provide direct relief to the intended recipients, and many governments shell out over-generously as a way of point scoring with ethnic minorities at home, or in a bid to bribe or sway certain international governments.

Britain spent £12.2 billion in foreign aid in 2015, and kind-hearted thought it may well seem, I think a far more moral approach would be to target crises individually and divert accidental over-spending towards problems happening at home.

2016 is the year that the UK’s steel industry urgently needs help, so let us hope that George Osborne does the right thing.